If you’re one of Guns & Ammo’s 400,000 readers, you might remember Dick Metcalf. Until October, he was the magazine’s back page columnist and one of the country’s most respected gun journalists. Then he wrote a column suggesting all of our fundamentally American rights are subject to some regulation — as in, the First Amendment’s "freedom of speech" doesn’t let you yell "Fire!" in a crowd.

Then he screwed up, applying the same logic to the Second Amendment when he wrote that mandatory gun safety courses aren’t unconstitutional. He was fired within days.

Right-wing pundits, from Sarah Palin to Mike Huckabee, rushed to defend Robertson and his freedom of speech — a sadly common red herring.

The Constitution protects all kinds of speech from government regulation. It doesn’t protect you from criticism, ridicule or repercussions for saying something stupid. Robertson’s homophobia didn’t get him arrested. He embarrassed his employer and paid the price — just like Metcalf.

But where are the right-wing rallies for Metcalf’s free speech? Under pressure, A&E un-suspended Robertson. No such fortune for Metcalf.

So what’s the difference? Robertson’s opinions matched the far right’s anti-gay agenda. It didn’t hurt that the right likes his TV show, too. Metcalf, on the other hand, challenged the orthodoxy of the gun lobby. Though a lifelong gun rights supporter, he was excommunicated for violating its only commandment: Thou shalt not question the Second Amendment.

Maybe Metcalf deserved to be fired. His column, no matter how well-reasoned, showed poor judgment. If his job required keeping readers and advertisers happy, Metcalf failed — and nothing in the Bill of Rights protected his job.

If the right-wing chatterboxes want to show they care about free speech, let’s see them defend speech they disagree with — like Metcalf’s. Or at least get the definition right.